Jump to content
Bies

3.001 aircrafts parameters available

Recommended Posts

That's interesting to know Gavrick and to some extent quite compelling. However, what interests me more is the test data I assume the Team must have on LaGG-3 and La-5 roll-rates.

Would you be so kind as to tell me where this information came from? There's a story going around on the internet that La-5FN data was used for this purpose. I know, that's crazy but that's what they're saying ...

Even if La5FN data was used and was extrapolated to account for a difference in the Lagg-3/La5 airframes, it still a very standout and surprising feature of these airframe's modelling. Given that the FN should roll even faster with the improved aileron deflection angles, it's going to look even more questionable. Would be really interested to see this data if the devs/anyone else knows of it?

 

Regards

Edited by Mcdaddy
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not so sure about this. 

109 (especially F4) can outturn the early La5. Depending on pilot's skills and flaps used or not. 

 

La5FN is a little bit lighter than the early one (standard mass), and more powerfull. So, to me (assumption), elevator maneuverability should be the same at and under 500km/h. Btw, La5FN is 205kg heavier than G6 (and G6 already 86kg heavier than G4) !  :dance:

 

For sure, 109 pilots are going to have tough time against the La5FN. They'll need to (re)develop there turnfight skill (that's why I'm often going on Berloga now  :biggrin: ).

 

To me, the nightmare will be a fight against the La5FN and the Baby Plane (Spitfire) together. When La5FN will catch you, you can manage to make him overshoot and dogfight it, but the baby plane (way more maneuverable) will kill you immediatly.

 

 

Le Circle Climb...... (i hope) 109's are still pretty good at that

 

 

I think all the VVS fighters engine torques the opposite direction from the 109's. Correct me if I am wrong someone please...... A left hand climb is a solid option. Trim into the climb, bunt as necessary to dodge fire until you start to separate. If you can't separate you at least have regained some altitude to reassess options.

 

I'm looking forward to the challenge! See if what I said works on that LA5FN.

Edited by 7./JG26_Smokejumper

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please don't pretend that the Bf 109 isn't the best fighter in the game.

 

 

 

 

Not to start a flame war but you are incorrect here sir. The P40 is the best fighter in the game.   :P

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Aircobra's armament is interesting... The nose mounted 2x50 cals will be good for sniping, 4x30 wing mounted MGs good for spray'n'pray and crippling snapshots. The major 37mm will get the AP rounds, what is unexpected - I wonder if they will be effective against an armor, or ships?

 

Rear visibility should be excellent in the P39 - she should be nice for running/dragging especially in shallow dives. The relatively short nose may allow for an effective aim in deflection shots, too.

 

I tend to be lazy in most planes and fire all the guns at once at a target.  I'm guessing the P-39 might call for some discipline in holding off on the 37 unitl you are in really close, or otherwise will just waste the ammo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 and the lack of a 1.65ata Fw190 fighter variant 

 

that is because there was never a production 1.65 ata FW190 fighter version until the A8 in 1944.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I play single player campaign missions I usually alternate between various airplanes that I like (lookin' at you P40!) and the 109, because the 109 is just something special.

 

Maybe "best" is a little overkill but.. :ph34r:

  MOAR BULLETS MOAR MILLING

 

chugchugchugchugchug

 

The P40 is like the gin of airplanes. Instead of panties it drops bombs.

Edited by 7./JG26_Smokejumper
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone know why the Lagg-3/La5 roll rates are so incredible?

 

Does anyone have a link to the La5FN roll rate data? I'm finding it hard to imagine the FN has even more improved ailerons and roll over the Lagg-3/La5 as they are currently modelled.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 I’m a reasonable and moderate Luftie, not one of the fringe screamers.

 

I've noticed you've mentioned this before in one of your posts.

 

Who would you list among your "fringe screamers" i.e. people who you consider to be neither reasonable nor moderate "Lufties"? 

Edited by Wulf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

that is because there was never a production 1.65 ata FW190 fighter version until the A8 in 1944.

 

Is this for certain?  As I've understood it the Jabo's used C3 injection for 1.65ata at SL, whilst the fighters simply had their  boost pressure raised to 1.58 ata @ SL, and 1.65ata at altitude as presented on september 1943 performance charts.

 

This August 1943 manual lists the C3 injection for the A5/A6:

http://www.avialogs.com/index.php/aircraft/germany/focke-wulf/fw190/d-luft-t-2190-a-5-a6-teil-7-fw-190-a-5-a-6-flugzeug-handbuch-teil-7-triebwerkbedien-und-versorgungsanlage.html

Edited by Panthera
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think this is even how it works. I think they input all known values about the plane into the engine, the engine then produces performance figures. If the engine has all the right data then then it should produce realistic performance values for the planes ingame.

 

That is why they are talking about performance being within x% of the charts, if they could just 'slow' a plane down by changing some numbers then this would make no sense. If they'd know the plane was off by x% from the charts, then why would they not have changed it already?

 

Same with the 109, they know it's turn rate is off afaik, but they can't just change it because that's not how it seems to work. They can only change things by having more complete data on the plane (which they lack the propeller data apparently), or by upgrading the engine itself to take more factors into account.

 

At least, this is my understanding of it, maybe I'm totally off but this does seem to explain the way they are going about things. So debating about a few kph doesn't really seem to make sense when it matches quite nicely with 7 aircraft from a single source.

 

Considering there have been numerous large and small changes over the course of years to most aircraft, I don't think this is a completely accurate statement. The problem as I understand it is every parameter is interlaced and chaging a little here can have large and unforseen changes elsewhere in the overall FM. It can be done but it is labor intensive. Also why I don't see it happening anytime soon but it'd still be nice to get a little closer to '43 specs/expectations.

 

As to my Luftie friends who are forum ragers, I don't think there are any secrets here, on either side of the issues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

in total, Fw 190 A-5 with C3 injection will be interesting, moreover, it is will be just analogue of LaGG-3 with 23-mm cannon 

 

althought, looks like that i prefer Fw 190 A-3 (or A-4) with "kiemenklappen" and "ETC 501 + C3 injection"

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is this for certain?  As I've understood it the Jabo's used C3 injection for 1.65ata at SL, whilst the fighters simply had their  boost pressure raised to 1.58 ata @ SL, and 1.65ata at altitude as presented on september 1943 performance charts.

 

This August 1943 manual lists the C3 injection for the A5/A6:

http://www.avialogs.com/index.php/aircraft/germany/focke-wulf/fw190/d-luft-t-2190-a-5-a6-teil-7-fw-190-a-5-a-6-flugzeug-handbuch-teil-7-triebwerkbedien-und-versorgungsanlage.html

 

In the manual it's stated that the increased power is for Jabo planes at low altiudes though, in the second paragraph below the title describing the C3 injection system:

 

 

Der Einbau einer C3-Kraftstoffzusatz-Einspritzanlage ist vorgesehen. Die Anlage wird in die dafür bestimmten Flugzeuge nach Änderungsanweisung Fw 190 Nr 104 eingebaut.

 

Zweck der Anlage ist es, bei ungedrosseltem Motor BMW 801D für Jabo in dringenden Notfällen unterhalb 1 km Flughöhe eine Erhöhun der Notleistung zu erzielen. Diese erhöhte Notleistung kann auf die Dauer von 10 bis 15 min enlnommen werden (Oltemperatur ist dabel zu beachtenl). Sie darf nur bei Vollgasstellung des Gashebels mit automalischer Luftschraubenverstellung und nurim Fluge eingsechaltet werden.

 

By google translate:

 

 

The installation of a C3 fuel additive injection system is planned. The system will be installed in the designated aircraft according to amendment Fw 190 No. 104.

 

The purpose of the system is to achieve an increase in emergency power in the event of an emergency under 1 km altitude with an unthrottled BMW 801D engine for Jabo. This increased emergency power can be taken for a period of 10 to 15 minutes (oil temperature must be taken into account). It may only be switched on with full throttle throttle position with automatic airscrew adjustment and only on the fly.

 

Some weeks ago I asked if the increased power was used for the fighters during the Kuban timeframe and JtD answered that it was implemented later on.

 

 It wasn't. It's mid 1944. A bit earlier than widespread use of MW50 on 109's.

 

We should have it for the A-8 for sure. Don't know about the A-5 getting it afterwards... maybe if they still were in significant quantity during the earlier parts of the career Black Six is planning for Bodenplatte (it would start in September 1944 I think).

Edited by -=PHX=-SuperEtendard
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is posts like this that literally give away the fact that you probably have never ever played the game. The yak turns better than the 109 .... any 109 in game. It may lose in comparison to other 109s in other parameters like speed and clombing but having one thing you can do better does not make it hold all cards, does it?

You took that post out of context. The immediate topic was the 109 handling pre FM patch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 27/2/2018 at 5:19 AM, -=PHX=-SuperEtendard said:

 

In the manual it's stated that the increased power is for Jabo planes at low altiudes though, in the second paragraph below the title describing the C3 injection system:

 

I know, but the fighter variants (that includes the A8) didn't ever get the C3 injection aparatus AFAIK, they simply had their boost pressure raised from 1.42ata to 1.58ata @ SL and 1.65ata at altitude, for which we have summer 43 performance charts.  As a result the Jabos actually had a little extra boost pressure and HP at SL, from 1.58 to 1.65ata and ~1,900 to ~2,000 hp. 

Edited by Panthera
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A5 Jabo variant have 587 km/h on the deck (with closed shutters) at normal conditions. Thats a bit faster than future FN. Why are there so many worries?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Makz said:

A5 Jabo variant have 587 km/h on the deck (with closed shutters) at normal conditions. Thats a bit faster than future FN. Why are there so many worries?

Well i guess the 583 km/h speed is not with closed shutters. Official A-5 speed at SL is 558.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Makz said:

A5 Jabo variant have 587 km/h on the deck (with closed shutters) at normal conditions. Thats a bit faster than future FN. Why are there so many worries?

Because some will have to start checking their six? Or to get sufficient speed to do something extra than just move the throttle?

  • Haha 1
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Ehret said:

Because some will have to start checking their six? Or to get sufficient speed to do something extra than just move the throttle?

 

That's a rather ignorant comment.

The reason for the worries is that the La-5FN we're getting wont just be the fastest, it will also be more maneuverable than the Fw190 in every way on top, and before the FM is fixed the 109 too.  In other words you end up with an ahistorical disparity, which is what people are worrying about.

  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 минуту назад, rolikiraly сказал:

Well i guess the 583 km/h speed is not with closed shutters. Official A-5 speed at SL is 558.

La-5 8 series reaches 544 km/h with fully closed shutters why should the FN differ?

(By the way. A5 reaches 558 km/h with optimaly opened shutters. Fully closed it runs 578 km/h)

Edited by Makz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Panthera said:

 

That's a rather ignorant comment.

The reason for the worries is that the La-5FN we're getting wont just be the fastest, it will also be more maneuverable than the Fw190 in every way on top, and before the FM is fixed the 109 too.  In other words you end up with an ahistorical disparity, which is what people are worrying about.

Maybe there will be some disparity, but a few are acting like they suddenly became helpless, victims even.

And no - the FN will not be the fastest - not universally so. Even the P40, or the 202, will be able to outrun/outclimb it in some circumstances. The La-5/F is my most flied crate and I have to throttle all the time, because of crappy dive limit, not changed in the FN, discarding a ton of kinetic energy in the process. The latter usually ends in a lost target, or becoming one myself...

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"a-historical disparity"

Like Axis outnumbering Allies.

There is no a-historical disparity with the La5FN, just a lot of something else and worrying is not the word.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, [3./J88]PikAss said:

One of the best jokes, i heard so far. But i can help you. Go Page #1 Data and compare La5FN with them and then La5 with them and imagen how it is right now only way better. :-)

Yeah and focus on the 3rd line from the top, then compare. Do some tests as well - I could out-loop the La-5F in the 202, only because the former cannot hold that much kinetic energy. I can run well over 700km/h, in a relatively shallow dive, in the P40 no problem - something the FN will not able to do.

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, FuriousMeow said:

"a-historical disparity"

Like Axis outnumbering Allies.

There is no a-historical disparity with the La5FN, just a lot of something else and worrying is not the word.

There absolutely is an ahistorical disparity when the 109 isn't performing nearly as well as it should. Furthermore it hasn't been completely disclosed yet wether or not uprated (not to be confused with C3 injection) Fw190A5 & A6's were available by august 43.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/26/2018 at 10:02 PM, Panthera said:

 

Is this for certain?  As I've understood it the Jabo's used C3 injection for 1.65ata at SL, whilst the fighters simply had their  boost pressure raised to 1.58 ata @ SL, and 1.65ata at altitude as presented on september 1943 performance charts.

 

This August 1943 manual lists the C3 injection for the A5/A6:

http://www.avialogs.com/index.php/aircraft/germany/focke-wulf/fw190/d-luft-t-2190-a-5-a6-teil-7-fw-190-a-5-a-6-flugzeug-handbuch-teil-7-triebwerkbedien-und-versorgungsanlage.html

 

The A5 could not handle 1.58/1.65 ata because the required hardware was not there. c3 injection was a workaround, but only worked at low altitude. The fuel pump and ECU were modified on the A8 to allow use of 1.58/1.65 ata. The reasons were technical, but are discussed in this thread:

 

 

Edited by Sgt_Joch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/26/2018 at 11:47 PM, Windmills said:

 

I don't think this is even how it works. I think they input all known values about the plane into the engine, the engine then produces performance figures. If the engine has all the right data then then it should produce realistic performance values for the planes ingame.

 

That is why they are talking about performance being within x% of the charts, if they could just 'slow' a plane down by changing some numbers then this would make no sense. If they'd know the plane was off by x% from the charts, then why would they not have changed it already?

 

Same with the 109, they know it's turn rate is off afaik, but they can't just change it because that's not how it seems to work. They can only change things by having more complete data on the plane (which they lack the propeller data apparently), or by upgrading the engine itself to take more factors into account.

 

At least, this is my understanding of it, maybe I'm totally off but this does seem to explain the way they are going about things. So debating about a few kph doesn't really seem to make sense when it matches quite nicely with 7 aircraft from a single source.

 

A bit late to reply but I was gonna do that Tuesday but then the site went down so better late than never. ;)

 

From a theoretical standpoint it’s perfectly possible to tune both top speed and climb and turn rates without having complete data on the planes. Modelling of performance in the high speed end is pretty much independent from the low speed (climb and turn) since drag and propeller efficiency characteristics are different you can tune that without affecting the other end of the spectrum.

 

So there is no single number that is tuned but a number of factors like the zero lift drag, the change of the induced drag as lift is applied (Oswald factor etc.) and the changing efficiency of the propeller depending on disc loading (hp/blade area) and propeller advance ratio, tip speed etc. and all those factors are different if you are going fast or slow (Mach effects) and at a high or low angle of attack (L/D ratio). These are the underlying physics and there are different ways of modelling this and even if we don’t know the exact inner working of the BoX model we know they can tune it: Remember that the Fw-190 turn performance was tuned without affecting the max speed. The same can and I’m sure will be done for the Me-109 because any model worth its salt can do that and the BoX FM engine is clearly up to the job.

 

However, as the information on the La-5FN speed tuning implies, some things are more connected and difficult to tune: Notice that the low speed tuning (583 Km/h) matches the IRL low altitude speed range (570-587 Km/h) while the high speed figure (646 Km/h)  is outside (629-640 Km/h) on the high end. I recognize this problem from my own C++ modelling and trying to tune speed at different altitudes can be troublesome so it looks like they made the choice to tune the speed for low altitudes and compromised on the high altitude tuning. This makes perfect sense I think since one of the first things people will focus on when the La-5FN is released is to measure the top speed at SL.

 

In fact the speed tuning of low and high altitude performance seems to be one of the limitations in the BoX FM AFAIK: While many planes have SL top speeds that are close to IRL numbers, I believe that some tend to overperform at high altitudes. IIRC then JtD made some in-game measurements on the Yak-1 some time ago that showed this trend. However, that being said, I think the accuracy of the modelling towards the chosen data on the La-5FN is remarkably close.

Edited by Holtzauge
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Sgt_Joch said:

 

The A5 could not handle 1.58/1.65 ata because the required hardware was not there. c3 injection was a workaround, but only worked at low altitude. The fuel pump and ECU were modified on the A8 to allow use of 1.58/1.65 ata. The reasons were technical, but are discussed in this thread:

 

 

 

But according to JtD the fuel pump wasn't changed....

 

Instead like I mentioned the max boost pressure seem to have simply been raised, which is what we see on the august 1943 charts for the A5.

Edited by Panthera
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

+190 :P For once i sooooo agree with you :salute:

 

like to repeat my self, but that's the privilege of getting old:

Copy of a text from LEMB or Whiteonefundation from 2008 (None of both sources can be argued with, Lemb Being the WW2 airplanes books writers forum, the second rebuilding an F-8 with original 801 and access to factory data.)

 

increasing Knock Limited Performance in the BMW801D2

Part 1

Throughout the war, the BMW801D2 was continually developed to keep pace with the performance

of the allied fighters faced by the FW-190 equipped Geschwaders. The engine became a

reliable workhorse and made the FW-190 one of the best performing low altitude fighters of

the war. It began its design lifecycle with a top shaft output of 1670PS at Start u Notleistung

at 1st Gear supercharger full throttle height and gained 150 PS by wars end at the same settings.

Additional boost systems raised this power output to over 2100PS. The BMW801D2 was developed

to the limits of its potential and even beyond a point when other motors such as the BMW802

showed greater promise for a similar effort. The Achilles heel however continued to be high

altitude performance. This article in two parts will discuss the 4 major systems used to increase

knock-limited performance in the BMW801D2 above the engines normal Start u Notleistung rating.

 

<POH maintenance schedule for BMW801C motors>

<POH maintenance schedule for late war BMW801D2>

 

In June of 1942 BMW completed a theoretical investigation in the potential development of the motor.

Without any major change to the motor it was possible to increase shaft power output at full

throttle height by 40PS at Start u Notleistung and 110PS at Steig u Kampfleistung. With some major

changes it was possible to get a shaft output of 2000PS without additional knock limiting performance

enhancements. It was determined that the motor had the potential for developing between 2000PS-2200PS

by injection of knock limiting agents such as water or alcohol water mixtures. Work began immediately

on putting the theory into practice. Prototype motors were constructed and work began on improving the

power output of the motor at all levels. By July 1942 BMW had constructed several prototype motors to

begin laboratory bench testing. BMW801D2V15 achieved 1950PS shaft output without ram or knock limiting

performance enhancements during this phase. In the quest for attaining the full potential of the BMW801D2

three knock limiting agent injection systems and one method of oxygen enrichment of the charge were shown

to be practical or worthy of further investigation.

 

<Insert Picture 1 BMW801D2V15 ram power production>

 

C3-Einspritzung, The Bomber and Attack Pilots Insurance

The first system to see operational adoption was the injection of C3 fuel as a knock limiting agent

directly into the left side of the supercharger intake. Motors were modified with stronger pistons

adopted from the BMW801E/S development. These new pistons became the production standard on all BMW801D

series motors in June 1943.

 

<new Pistons>

 

On the 10th of April 1943 the first flight testing of the new system began with a 25-minute flight in the low

altitude portion of the 1st gear supercharger and resulted in 8 minutes of the systems use. By the 22nd of

April 1943 test flights were using the system as long as 15 minutes and at manifold pressures as high as 1.8ata

between 3.5km and 7km altitude. Initial flight-testing was completed on the 17th of May 1943. The flight test

results concluded however that the system produced 2050PS in the 1st Gear Supercharger and that a manifold pressure

of 1.65ata could be used reliably. As the pressure fell off with altitude however, the standard fuel pump was not

able to provide sufficient quantities of fuel to allow the system to develop additional power in the 2nd Gear

Supercharger. The engine cooling was also not sufficient enough for the system to be used in climbing flight.

The fuel pump could not deliver enough fuel to the left hand supercharger intake to keep cylinder temperatures

within operational limits at climbing speeds. It was felt that a further 50PS of thrust power could be gained

by changing the propeller reduction gearing to a more suitable ratio in order to fully exploit the new power

gains of the motor. The initial testing was completed and the findings compiled by the 19th of July 1943.

It is interesting to note that JG54 begins reporting experience with the new system in 23 July 1943.

This point’s to JG54 conducting operational testing of the system shortly after the completion of the initial

testing and during the endurance trials.

That same month endurance testing began on the new system. Five test aircraft were selected. Three fighter variants

and two fighter-bomber variants were selected with a mix of cooling gill types for the testing. One aircraft,

an FW-190A4 SB+IK was selected to use Methanol Water as a knock limiting injection agent for a total of 4hrs 43

minutes flight time. The aircraft switched back to C3-Einspritzung for the remainder of the testing. A spark plug

change was recommended to the Bosch DW 240 ET 7/1a on all aircraft using C3-Einspritzung.

By August 1943 the RLM was comfortable enough with the reliability and performance increase of the new system to issue

instructions for it’s use in the September 1943 FW-190A4 Flugzeug-Handbuch Teil 07 for Ground attack variants of

the FW-190 series at altitudes of 1 Km and below. The Flugzeug-Handbuch also notes that the system can be retrofitted

onto earlier variants. This required swapping the entire Triebwerk or power egg, as the system required the internal

changes adopted in June 1943 for all serial production BMW801D2’s. The system was limited to one 10-15 minutes use and

the pilot was instructed to watch his oil temperature not allowing it to go over 85 degrees Celsius. During the

testing the oil temperature remained between 70-77 degrees Celsius with the system in use. Fuel consumption was an

average of 70 liters per 5 minutes time flown with C3-Einspritzung.

To overcome the voracious appetite for fuel, Focke Wulf investigated the installation of a 115 liter

zustatzkraftstoffbehältor im rumpf mounted inside the fuselage behind the cockpit. It was found that the tank caused

the CG to move dangerously rearward and made the aircraft unstable. In order to restore the CG, weights were added

to the propeller roots on aircraft using the zustatzkraftstoffbehältor im rumpf. Making the aircraft safe to fly

with this tank would become a stumbling block for Focke Wulf, Gmbh. Mounting the tank on fighter variants became an

issue with RLM in December 1943 and delayed the introduction of the FW-190A8. The ETC 501 rack was moved forward

to restore the CG in serial production FW-190A8, a fill port, and an access hatch was also provided in the fuselage.

The tank installation would not find serial production introduction until the August -September 1944 timeframe

on any BMW801D2 powered variant. This installation can be noted by the presence of C3 warning triangle at the fill

port which must be marked and the presence of the propeller weights. In Geschwaders equipped with the FW190A8 the

tank could be ordered as a separate piece of equipment before its introduction in serial production in October 1944.

The balance issue was eliminated in the FW190A9 by the installation of thicker armor on the oil cooler.

The tanks operational use was limited to aircraft modified by the factory with a special kit in the earlier bomber

and ground attack variants.

 

<propeller weights VDM ersatzteilliste>

<tank installation digram>

 

The next development for C3-Einspritzung occurs after the completion of the endurance testing.

The limits are raised to “as long as the emergency lasts” in the December 1943 FW-190A5 Flugzeug-Handbuch,

Teil 07. During 1943 however, an alarming number of BMW801D2 motors experienced connecting rod failures.

It was not until mid-1944 that the cause was discovered to be a change in the oil formulation that caused

the oil to break down at lower temperatures than expected under stress and heat. These events must have had

an influence on the limitations of C3-Einspritzung. In March 1944 Focke Wulf reissues instructions for the

use of C3-Einspritzung limiting the system to three uses of 10 minutes each with a mandatory 10 minutes cool

down period at Stieg u Kampfleistung or 1.32ata at 2400U/min.

These instructions are reprinted in the February 1944 Flugzeug-Handbuch, Teil 07. By July of 1944 further

instructions are issued stating the system can be used for 10-minutes only.

C3-Einspritzung raised the performance of the FW-190 ground attack variants at altitudes below 1 KM adding an

average speed increase of 35-40kph. This put the Ground Attack variants in the 565kph to 595kph range without

mounted ordinance and depending on the type of wing rack installed on the aircraft. This also put the FW-190

ground attack variants with ordinance racks on equal or slightly superior footing in level speed with most

allied fighters in a clean configuration. On the Eastern Front it was not until the VVS began to acquire in

early 1945 variants of the La7 capable of achieving 612kph using augmented power of the Ash-82FN that they

possessed a fighter capable of intercepting FW-190 ground attack variants below 1km.

 

<Gordan and Khazonov, Soviet Combat

Aircraft of the Second World War. Volume One – Single Engine Fighers>

<C-3 POH picture>

<C3 diagram>

<FW190 performance with C3>

 

Without a doubt C3 Einspritzung contributed greatly to the Schlachtflieger and Bombenflieger survival in combat.

 

Ladedruckerhöhung, Keine C3-Einspritzung!

 

Due to the fact C3-Einspritzung power production fell off after 1 KM in altitude it was quickly realized that an

alternative would have to be developed for use by the Jadgeschwaders. C3-Einspritzung delivered spectacular

performance but the low altitude restrictions made it unsuitable for normal fighter operations.

Erprobungskommando 25 was selected to begin testing of a new system.

 

http://www.ww2.dk/air/jagd/ekdo25.htm

http://www.ww2.dk/oob/bestand/jagd/bekdo25.html

 

An FW-190A5 “Weisse 35” was modified with a new stronger fuel pump and the fittings for this system.

Flight-testing began on 30 August 1943 and was completed on 01 September 1943. It determined that Ladedruckerhöhung

maintained oil and cylinder head temperatures within acceptable limits. Level speeds were increased on average by

36kph at 3KM in altitude and 42 kph at 5 KM altitude with an average increase of 22kph up to the 1st Gear Supercharger FTH.

Erprobungskommando 25 submitted the testing results to BMW and on 01 December 1943 the motor manufacturer returned

clearance for the system to be used for a maximum of ten minutes for further testing. It is evident that BMW was

greatly concerned about the cylinder temperatures in climbing flight. Especially in the heat of summer or the tropics,

the system would push the motor to its extremes. When the motor mounts in the FW-190A5 variant were lengthened to

restore the aircrafts CG limits it introduced a temperature imbalance between the cylinder banks of the BMW801D2.

The front bank of cylinders was now operating at a much cooler temperature than the rear cylinders. This would rob

power production of the motor and cause undue wear on the engine. In October 1943 BMW investigated the summer and

winter performance of the motor. The details of this investigation will be discussed in later articles. What is

evident is that this imbalance delayed the continuation of testing for Ladedruckerhöhung until December 1943.

The problems of cooling the motor in climbing flight combined with production of a pool of operational spare engines

further delayed Ladedruckerhöhung’s appearance in serial production until early summer 1944.

In March 1944, Focke Wulf Bremen issued a report to the RLM on the performance increases of the BMW801D2. In that

report it clearly states that Rechlin has not yet released Ladedruckerhöhung for operational use and was still

conducting testing of the system. When the operational instructions for the systems use show up in the

Flugzeug-Handbuch some major changes had been made to the cooling system by Focke Wulf and BMW.

To increase pressure around the cylinders and providing needed cooling, the baffling was tightened around the motor.

Larger internal intakes were also added to provide the increase in air volume to the supercharger as well.

In July 1944 BMW issues instructions clarifying the two boost systems in place for the BMW801D2.

These instruction notes that Ladedruckerhöhung is now standard on all production Triebwerks used by fighter variants

beginning that same month. The system is cleared for 10 minutes of use in fighter variants at all altitudes and

conditions of flight.

Ladedruckerhöhung first appears in official manuals in the September 1944, (effective July 1944), FW-190A7

bis FW-190A9 Flugzeug Handbuch Teil 07 the system is described as an airline with a series of nozzles and a

push pull valve. Power was gained by bleeding air from the supercharger pressure line.

A flexible tube drew off a portion of the boost pressure when opened and was connected to the supercharger airline

between the fuel mixture chamber and the ladedruckreglar. The two nozzles in series in the line were of different

diameters and designed to bleed off the pressure to a very low level when the actuation valve was opened.

This fooled the Ladedruckreglar of the Kommandgerät into compensating for the lower pressure by opening the butterfly

valves of the throttle wider and increasing the manifold pressure to 1.58ata in the 1st Gear Supercharger FTH

and 1.65ata in the 2nd Gear Supercharger FTH. The stronger fuel pump would then provide the required amount of fuel

increasing both power and fuel consumption. During the summer months it was noted that the system would push the

thermal limits of the motor to their maximum permissible levels. All aircraft mounting the new system will be marked

with a yellow ring 50mm in diameter with a 10mm diameter hole in the center. The ring would mount on the lower left

portion of the MG cover near the cockpit.

 

<EN POH picture>

<EN diagram>

<EN Performance>

<EN power production>

Ladedruckerhöhung improved the performance of the only serial production Anton to receive the modifications, the FW-190A8

considerably. The boost in power was much needed to overcome the 7 % weight creep in the BMW801D2 powered Antons.

Granted this is below average weight creep for a 1st line fighter design in WWII.

<AHT US fighter weight creep>

The power to weight ratio of the FW190A8 was better than FW-190A0 which so impressed the pilots of JG26 in 1941.

The increase in power left the FW190A8 competitive at low altitudes and further improved the dog fighting capability of the design.

These two systems comprise the most common power boosting systems found in the operational Geschwaders using the FW190 series.

The second part of the article will cover Alkohol-Einspritzung, GM-1 Zustatz, and field modifications.

Stayed tuned as there will more to follow shortly!

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Sgt_Joch
  • Thanks 3
  • Upvote 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alright you've convinced me Sgt. Joch, apparently the increased boost pressure for all altitudes wasn't introduced operationally until the summer of 1944 for fighter as well as Jabo variants. 

However interestingly it is mentioned that the C3 injection system was available for all 190's by early summer 1943 via field modification. This means that fighter variants could've easily been carrying it as well, and probably occasionally did too as pilots were keen on gaining any edge available to them. Thus adding C3 injection as a mod for the fighter variant ingame on Kuban maps is justifiable IMO. 

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Fw190 manual mentions that earlier variants could be retrofitted with the system by swapping the power egg. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Panthera said:

Alright you've convinced me Sgt. Joch, apparently the increased boost pressure for all altitudes wasn't introduced operationally until the summer of 1944 for fighter as well as Jabo variants. 

However interestingly it is mentioned that the C3 injection system was available for all 190's by early summer 1943 via field modification. This means that fighter variants could've easily been carrying it as well, and probably occasionally did too as pilots were keen on gaining any edge available to them. Thus adding C3 injection as a mod for the fighter variant ingame on Kuban maps is justifiable IMO. 

 

Don't see where you read early summer

 

4 hours ago, Sgt_Joch said:

By August 1943 the RLM was comfortable enough with the reliability and performance increase of the new system to issue

instructions for it’s use in the September 1943 FW-190A4 Flugzeug-Handbuch Teil 07 for Ground attack variants of

the FW-190 series at altitudes of 1 Km and below. The Flugzeug-Handbuch also notes that the system can be retrofitted

onto earlier variants. This required swapping the entire Triebwerk or power egg, as the system required the internal

changes adopted in June 1943 for all serial production BMW801D2’s.

 

First issue of instructions in Sept, how long this would then take to be supplied as 'field mod' for use on fighters in EF when it was probably far more important to jabo units and OE fitment

 

how long will the 'quest for C3 /high ATA 190 fighters for Kuban continue ? :)

 

Cheers, Dakpilot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My mistake, that would be late summer. 

 

I still don't see why we cannot have this modified engine available as a mod for the fighter variant ingame when we already have it as a Jabo mod. 

 

I don't understand why you are against this. 

Edited by Panthera
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well, apart of performance of some Bf 109s, limit of fosazh for La-5FN etc, for example, performance of Yak-7B s36 is very close to what i know about modernized Yak-7Bs...

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, 303_Kwiatek said:

 

Yep Yak-7B looks very resonable to me not like LA5FN which is much close to prototype then frontline plane ( expecially high alt performacne). [...]

 

You are aware that the more you say wrong things, it still does not make them right, correct?  Is that ever going to get through to you?

  • Haha 4
  • Confused 2
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...